|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
At the outset I would like to make clear that the following is only a set of personal opinions and suggestions and that my chance to read contributions from others has been limited as the email connection here is very poor so I apologise if I am simply covering ground already well trodden. I have recently been involved in DFID supported projects to develop a framework for implementing adaptive co-management in fisheries (termed adaptive learning). This is an approach to resource management that focuses on generating, sharing and utilising information in order to reduce key uncertainties and increase the benefits from the resource system and requires the active participation of a range of stakeholders including researchers, extension workers and resource users/managers. As such the approach is part of the movement towards integration of research and development rather than viewing them as sequential activities. Within the adaptive learning process it is a central tenet that any learning must be both relevant and appropriate resulting in information that is shared in a timely and appropriate way. As well as generating information any learning activities also have to be acceptable in terms of risk and equity. This in itself requires a good understanding of stakeholder issues and concerns. As such it is an approach that recognises the diverse skills, knowledge and understanding of different stakeholders and looks to build upon these. This results in information being generated that is relevant to the needs of users/managers and is therefore more likely to be utilised. It also tries to ensure that extension staff, when they share the information with others in similar situations elsewhere are not, as one contributor put it, 'trudging round trotting out the same old tired, irrelevant and non productive advice'. However, given a range of stakeholder interests, an important principle (and one that is sometimes not acknowledged) is that people will only work together if they can see the benefits of doing so. The approach therefore requires developing collaborative arrangements and a commitment to transparency, developing skills, empowerment and explanation. Experiences with these projects can perhaps highlight some issues that DFID may wish to consider in relation to research in development. In the first place, where we are dealing with complex and dynamic resource systems (in terms the technical, institutional and socio-economic aspects), as we so often are in natural resources management, we do not always know what is the 'best' option. In fact there may well be no single solution and development will by necessity be a continuous process. In such circumstances, where actions (e.g. what to plant) must be taken despite uncertainty, it is often highly beneficial to combine research and development and ensure that learning to inform future management is an explicit objective of doing. How we do things, i.e. the process, also becomes as important, if not more so than what we do. Where research is located in the development process, how it is accessed and research that examines the process is important. I agree with those contributions I have seen that suggest developing productive partnerships between research institutions and those engaged in extension/development work is important. DFID should perhaps look to be supporting initiatives and arrangements that provide links between the demand for research (from farmers through extension workers) and the provision of research and research outputs. I also agree that DFID should recognise that UK based researchers, who have a great deal of expertise and experience, can have an important role in this. UK researchers often have long-term collaborative arrangements with organisations in developing countries that are a resource much valued by these organisations. In relation to such arrangements, I believe that it is important to ensure that capacity building, including changing attitudes and ways of working (of both individuals and organisations) needs to be recognised a valid part of the research process. Extension workers have been a key stakeholder group in our projects, providing a vital link (both ways) between those managing and dependent on the resource systems on the one hand and researchers and policy makers on the other. Recognising this, and enhancing their role and developing their capabilities has been an important part of the process, though as it stands not explicitly recognised as a part of the research by DFID. Support for this type of capacity building should be a part of future DFID research policy. While suggesting that research and development should be more closely integrated operationally, research and development within DFID have seemed, at least to me, rather separate. Some other contributors have indicated that the products of their research have been taken up and applied in DFID development initiatives. My own (limited) experience with the projects with which I am involved however is that the path within the DFID from research to application in development initiatives or becoming part of DFID policy is not entirely clear. In fact it appears from the contributions that I have read (though I have not read that many and may therefore be mistaken) that incorporation of the results of DFID funded research in DFID development initiatives is often the result of efforts made by the researcher in promoting their research rather than an effective process within DFID for utilising research outputs. As important as having an effective mechanism for reporting and promoting success is being prepared for failure as all research carries an element of risk. Communication of instances of failure that have broad implications is as important, if not more so, than descriptions of (often context specific) successes but a lot less common. This is especially so when considering research and development processes. There are a group of us who, only half-jokingly, think that an accessible journal devoted to setbacks in development and 'failing forward' - The Journal of Didn't - would be a useful resource. The point is that within its monitoring and evaluation DFID should be prepared to go further in recognising the value of failure and partial success and support the reporting and sharing of experiences and setbacks. This would ensure that lessons from instances where everything did not go exactly to plan could be learned. I hope that I have been able to make a useful contribution to a discussion that I have found interesting and thought provoking. Best regards, Robert Arthur ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail is sent by the above named individual, a representative of MRAG Ltd. The contents of the message represent the views of the individual and may not necessarily reflect those of the company. The above information transmitted, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. MRAG Ltd reserves the right to monitor outgoing and incoming e-mails and other telecommunications on its e-mail and telecommunications systems.
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.